Lead bioaccumulates, it stays in your body until you die, there's no mechanism to remove lead. The scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of lead exposure. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27837574/ or even the CDC: "No safe blood lead level in children has been identified. Even low levels of lead in blood have been shown to affect learning, ability to pay attention, and academic achievement. " https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/default.htm
So, yes, there are a lot of toxic things in the environment and I'm not concerned about most of them but lead is dangerous and has been proven to be. There is also no reason whatsoever for a company to use lead paint (which has been banned for constructions in the 70s) on a product meant to be used for children (a baby bottle).
The FDA didn't care about lead when it was being spooned directly to infant's mouths in the form of their baby food. The standards aren't what they are because of the amount of risk to people's health, or they would never have allowed it. I wouldn't assume something was safe just because it met FDA standards/recommendations.
The report found that the FDA's inaction and approach "appears designed to be protective of baby food manufacturers." if that's true, then you couldn't really trust them to tell you they know that something is definitely bad
Link: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house....
I felt the same about the amount of arsenic, lead, and mercury, in baby food. Companies have gotten away with having dangerous amounts of them in the food they sell. It wasn't even limited to weird off brands but popular brands I probably ate myself as an infant like Gerber and Beech-Nut.
I don't have much faith n the FDA at this point. I would have thought "No literal poison in baby food" would have been the standard, but turns out the FDA allowed dangerous amounts. A congressional report found that the FDA did nothing to limit the levels of dangerous metals in baby food, and that they appeared to be doing it "to be protective of industry". Now the FDA has said they'll do something about it, but even their plan is called "Closer to Zero" when what we need is an "Essentially zero poison in baby food" standard.
As a pigment, titanium dioxide also seems like it's currently the go-to less toxic replacement for the lead-based pigments in lead paint.
Taken at face value that quote seems like reason enough to at least suspect that there's a possible problem. It also says that by the time they did that France had already banned it.
The fact that a bunch of people evaluated evidence that gave them significant concern doesn't prove that they're right, but it is some reason to believe it's toxic... It's not a lot very strong thing to base that belief on, but it's something. Reading that alone I would try to avoid the stuff until I got the chance to look into what all that evidence was.
That's assuming the article can be taken at face value. This is wikipedia after all. I did notice that there was a prominent statement right at the top of the "Health and Safety" section which says it "is regarded as "completely nontoxic". Maybe that is true, but the citation points to a source from 2006 while the EU decided to ban it 15 years later after "new understandings of nanoparticles".
Being sure that there's no issues without having done the research is just as ignorant as someone who panics without having done the research. If I'm concerned about something, you can be sure I will read everything to see if it is an actual issue or not.
See: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/default.htm https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27837574/
Apparently, it's considered to be acceptable by current standards. Despite the fact that babies will obviously touch the bottle (and the paint) and then put their hands in their mouth. I bought glass bottles because I wanted to avoid plastic thinking it'd be safer and I was reassured by seeing that they were manufactured in Germany :(
I think we still have very far to go in terms of toxic substance exposure.